<Snipped quote by Unoedipal>
Indeed, which is what I said all along. But the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the King's Crown are there, that's enough to say they are from Jerusalem, just like any half decent historian of the Middle East would be able to. Pinpointing that he's Baldwin is a whole different ball game than calling a general location.
Yeah, that's fine. Given that the Jerusalem cross is hardly something you had to know Baldwin to recognize on face, the conclusion that "he's probably from Jerusalem" isn't out of the question. Anything further, less so.
The equivalent of seeing a guy in an American military uniform and recognizing him as American military would be looking at Baldwin and thinking "this guy must be a crusader", rather than "this guy must be the king of Jerusalem".
Pretty much this. "He's probably from Jerusalem" is fine, "He's probably a king of Jerusalem" is less so.
<Snipped quote by Unoedipal>
Still has no basis on Arthur's legends, so it keeps on being baseless BS.
Indeed, but you do know that King Arthur is the blade's owner (doesn't mind if you lived in Japan, or the middle of the Pre-Colombian Americas, you know and respect Excalibur). Knowing that Arthur is in truth Arthuria is another thing, and the reason most get shocked at first, still it's the same thing in a way.
In the actual legend, sure. In the legend in the Nasuverse, no. The difference is that nobody here's Nasu.